Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Luck vs. RG3

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Re: Luck vs. RG3

    I see you added some after I posted. You are entitled to your opinion......

    I see both as having an equal chance to succeed in the playoffs. IMO the QB can be a scrub if you have a great defense and a good running game (Ravens)

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Luck vs. RG3

      Ya, that was my train of thought too, at first... from a sky-high view. Both were fairly close.

      Watch more video, maybe... that's how it became increasingly evident to me, the more I saw, that it really isn't close.
      There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Luck vs. RG3

        I have seen video of both, and I stand by my claim that both have an equal chance of being successful in the post season.

        I am more worried about how they put around each other, then if they can handle the playoffs.

        Of course, both will have to make it to the post season first....

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Luck vs. RG3

          I know this sounds crazy in light of Indy's recent roster moves... but I'm more confident in Indy's management putting a team around Luck than I am in Washington putting one around RG3. The track record over the past decade speaks for itself. Irsay may seem odd, but he built one helluva team. I think he's able to do it again. I think he's doing it, right now.
          There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Luck vs. RG3

            I like Luck because he's that smart, pocket passing gunner. If you wan't athleticism, he's your guy too. He ran the same 40 as Cam Newton. RG3 is the new Vick. Crazy fast, not very intelligent when it comes to throwing vs running.
            Senior at the University of Louisville.
            Greenfield ---> The Ville

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Luck vs. RG3

              Yeah there are two things that are going on right now with these two teams. Both are trying to build good teams, the difference is, Colts are adding people all throughout the team, and signing them to cheap contracts, the Redskins are doing the same thing that got them in financial trouble in the first place, overpaying average players, not only that they are signing a bunch of people at the same position.

              When talking about how the two different organizations, this is a big difference. Hopefully the redskins will do a better job of building smart around RG3.
              Why so SERIOUS

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Luck vs. RG3

                Originally posted by Steagles View Post
                I like Luck because he's that smart, pocket passing gunner. If you wan't athleticism, he's your guy too. He ran the same 40 as Cam Newton. RG3 is the new Vick. Crazy fast, not very intelligent when it comes to throwing vs running.
                Are you kidding, lol RG3 is a pass first QB, that happens to be fast, very different from Vick, he is also very smart, graduating in political science in 3 years while playing football and track, and I believe he is in a masters program now.

                I like Luck but do not sleep on RG3.
                Why so SERIOUS

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Luck vs. RG3

                  From what I have saw, RG3 gets the majority of his rushing yards on designed run plays, he has the ability to break for long runs when plays break down, but he will stay behind the line of scrimmage forever trying to find the open man.
                  Why so SERIOUS

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Luck vs. RG3

                    Originally posted by vapacersfan View Post
                    I have seen video of both, and I stand by my claim that both have an equal chance of being successful in the post season.

                    I am more worried about how they put around each other, then if they can handle the playoffs.

                    Of course, both will have to make it to the post season first....
                    Winning games in college is very different than winning games in the NFL. The ability to react to and desguise defenses is much more complicated for a Qb to understand and react accordingly to.

                    This is the big difference between the 2 Qb's. Luck is ahead of the learning curve because he was given the keys early on in his college career to handle that and he will more ready than RG3. Is that RG3 fault? Of course not but it is what it is and I wouldn't bet on RG3 winning in the playoffs in the next 3 years if I was you.

                    RG3 play calls were most of the time short drop backs and he was not required to go through all his reads. He basically most of the time went 2 deep in his reads than ran if he didn't see anything he liked. That was 90% of his plays and this is why his learning curve is going to be more difficult than Luck. Did he drop back for the deep ball and scramble around? Of course but the majority of his completions were short design plays to allow his recievers to gain yards after the catch.

                    More importantly his pocket awareness is not that good at all and if take those two knocks against him into consideration then you going to have a guy who IS going to turn the ball over and have a difficult time making the right play the majority of the time.

                    RG3 success in Washington will be more likely than his success here as a COlt. For one young QBs need big targets and max protection and they have 2 good TE's that can give both. The Redskins can also dumb down the playbook and rely more on the defense and controling the clock.

                    As Colt I don't see how we could give RG3 those things and certainly Luck will also have a difficult time especially if the TE position isn't addressed fairly soon but his ability to adjust on the fly will be what saves him early on.
                    Last edited by Gamble1; 03-28-2012, 03:12 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Luck vs. RG3

                      Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
                      Winning games in college is very different than winning games in the NFL. The ability to react to and desguise defenses is much more complicated for a Qb to understand and react accordingly to.

                      This is the big difference between the 2 Qb's. Luck is ahead of the learning curve because he was given the keys early on in his college career to handle that and he will more ready than RG3. Is that RG3 fault? Of course not but it is what it is and I wouldn't bet on RG3 winning in the playoffs in the next 3 years if I was you.

                      RG3 play calls were most of the time short drop backs and he was not required to go through all his reads. He basically most of the time went 2 deep in his reads than ran if he didn't see anything he liked. That was 90% of his plays and this is why his learning curve is going to be more difficult than Luck. Did he drop back for the deep ball and scramble around? Of course but the majority of his completions were short design plays to allow his recievers to gain yards after the catch.

                      More importantly his pocket awareness is not that good at all and if take those two knocks against him into consideration then you going to have a guy who IS going to turn the ball over and have a difficult time making the right play the majority of the time.

                      RG3 success in Washington will be more likely than his success here as a COlt. For one young QBs need big targets and max protection and they have 2 good TE's that can give both. The Redskins can also dumb down the playbook and rely more on the defense and controling the clock.

                      As Colt I don't see how we could give RG3 those things and certainly Luck will also have a difficult time especially if the TE position isn't addressed fairly soon but his ability to adjust on the fly will be what saves him early on.
                      Good call but I think you might be overlooking 1 little thing: The Colts are going to win with defense and controling the clock too. This is why they drafted larger offensive lineman who can run block. The will sacrifice a little in the passing game but looks like they are going to ground and pound with a limited playbook.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Luck vs. RG3

                        Originally posted by troyc11a View Post
                        Good call but I think you might be overlooking 1 little thing: The Colts are going to win with defense and controling the clock too. This is why they drafted larger offensive lineman who can run block. The will sacrifice a little in the passing game but looks like they are going to ground and pound with a limited playbook.
                        The difference is when teams put 8 in the box can you call the right play out of that defense even it its a run play to the other direction in 15 seconds or less. Can you line up see the coverage let the defense get set then audible to the right play and help make line adjustments.

                        This is where the big difference will occur and the Qb will have to understand tendicies of defense and the disguises that they use for each game. Luck is better equipped to do this right now and RG3 will get there but I think its 3 to 4 years away with a full play book.

                        Don't get me wrong I think RG3 will win but he is more set up in Washington with their TE's than he would be here with Brody or some rookie.
                        Last edited by Gamble1; 03-28-2012, 03:54 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Luck vs. RG3

                          Originally posted by Really? View Post
                          Yeah there are two things that are going on right now with these two teams. Both are trying to build good teams, the difference is, Colts are adding people all throughout the team, and signing them to cheap contracts, the Redskins are doing the same thing that got them in financial trouble in the first place, overpaying average players, not only that they are signing a bunch of people at the same position.

                          When talking about how the two different organizations, this is a big difference. Hopefully the redskins will do a better job of building smart around RG3.
                          They also pulled a "Ricky Williams trade" to get draft rights to presumably RG3, giving up a lot of future high picks.

                          Remember how "guaranteed" Ricky Williams was comin' outta college? Man that killed the Saints.

                          "Head coach Mike Ditka traded all of the Saints' 1999 draft picks to the Washington Redskins to get Williams, as well as first- and third-round picks the following year".
                          There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Luck vs. RG3

                            Originally posted by troyc11a View Post
                            Good call but I think you might be overlooking 1 little thing: The Colts are going to win with defense and controling the clock too. This is why they drafted larger offensive lineman who can run block. The will sacrifice a little in the passing game but looks like they are going to ground and pound with a limited playbook.
                            Eh.... maaaaaaybe. When you draft a Luck or RG3, I really doubt your offense is going to be anything resembling a "ground and pound" offense... at least in the long-term. You ground it and pound it when you don't have much in the way of a QB. That is hardly how you'd describe prospects like Luck and RG3.

                            They may be setting up the team like this for the interim, to help Luck out initially, but at some point in time, when you got a QB like that, you gotta throw the ball around.

                            I think what Indy is trying to do right now is just get some semblance of a defense. It's not like we're replicating the Ravens here. We haven't really had a true D in about a decade... hell it's hard to remember Indy having any defense. Indy dumped a ton of salary cap on the offensive side of the ball and so they know they're going to have to rely on the D for a bit until their offense gets up to speed... which is probly going to be a good year or two. Indy had something like 60-65% of the salary cap devoted to the offense during Manning's tenure (which is why our defense sucked, lol)...
                            Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 03-28-2012, 04:06 PM.
                            There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Luck vs. RG3

                              Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                              They also pulled a "Ricky Williams trade" to get draft rights to presumably RG3, giving up a lot of future high picks.

                              Remember how "guaranteed" Ricky Williams was comin' outta college? Man that killed the Saints.

                              "Head coach Mike Ditka traded all of the Saints' 1999 draft picks to the Washington Redskins to get Williams, as well as first- and third-round picks the following year".
                              Yeah Ricky did have it all, he just was not mentally tough, waste of talent.
                              Why so SERIOUS

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Luck vs. RG3

                                Originally posted by Really? View Post
                                Yeah Ricky did have it all, he just was not mentally tough, waste of talent.
                                Ricky Williams numbers : 2431 Carries, 10,009 yds, 66 TDs. 342 Catches, 2,606 yds, 8 TD's.

                                And he missed the entire 2004 and 2006 seasons.

                                Though he wasn't always a model teammate. I'd say he had a pretty successful career.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X